Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ram Narayanrao Indurkar vs M/O Environment And Forests on 8 February, 2023
i GA203 6/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur.
©.A.2036/2019
Dated this Wednesday the 8" day of February, 2023. .
Coram : Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Dr. Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative).
Shri Ram Narayanrao Indurkar,
Resident of 42, Atrey Layout,
Pratap Nagar, Nagpur -- 440 022. . Applicant.
(By Advocate Mr.N.S. Warulkar ).
Versus
1. Unton of India, through
the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -- 110.003.
tha
The State of Maharashtra, through
its Secretary,
Revenue and Forests Department, |
Mantralaya, Mumbai -- 400 032. .. Respondents.
{ By Advocate Shri Bhaskar D. Pandit for R-1 and
Ms.Mugdha Chandurkar for R-2 ).
Order reserved on 20.01.2023
Order pronounced on : 08.02.2025.
ORDER
Per: Dr.Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A)
Shri Ram Narayanrao Indurkar, retired Indian Forest Service Officer has filed this O.A. on 14.02.2019 seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 07.05.2014 issued by Respondent No.2 about grant VAL 2 OA.2036/2019 of benefit of pay scale of Rs.24050-26000/- to the applicant i.e, the scale prescribed for the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life) from 17.04.2002 and accordingly revise his monthly pension in that pay scale from 01 01.2006; direction to Respondent No.2 to release arrears of monthly pension to him from 17.04.2002 (within 3 months); and award cost of this application to him. |
2. Summarized facts :
Zia). The applicant was selected by Bombay Public Service Commission for forest service and after completing training at Indian Forest College, Dehradun, he was appointed Assistant Conservator of Foresis (ACF) on 03.10.1961. Then he was absorbed in Maharashtra Cadre of Indian Forest Service from 01.10.1966, was promoted as Deputy Conservator of Forests (D.C.F.) in 1967, as Conservator of Forests from 02.03.1982; Additional Chief Conservator of Forests on 22.11.1989: as Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life) from (44.10.1990 and retired from that post on 30,04,1994 and thereafter has been receiving Pension of pay scale of that post.
2b). Department of Personne! & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, issued notification dated 17.04.2002, notifving the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Second Amendment, Regulations, 2002 substituting the entries in IFS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966 for Maharashtra Cadre, As per 3 OA.2636/2019 these Regulations, one post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PECF) was created, another post of PCCP (Wild Life) and Chief Wildlife Warden, and other posts at various levels were created.
2(e). Then the Department of Revenue and Forests, Government of Maharashtra issued Government Resolution dated 15.01.2003 mentioning that in the revised cadre schedule attached with Government of India Resolution dated 17.04.2002, some of the existing posts were upgraded in different grades, including newly added post of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. As per proposal submitted by:
the PCCF for redistribution of functions among PCCF, Addl. PCCF and CCF, it was decided that the post of PCCF (Wildlife) be upgraded to PCCF grade and to avoid any ambiguity in the functioning of PCCF's office, it was clarified that PCCP would act as a leader of the team and would coordinate all programmes and activities of the department, including wildlife.
2(d). | The applicant retired from the post of Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) on 30.04.1994. While there was only one post of PCCP as per Notification of DoPT dated 25.03.1986, by the subsequent Notification of DoPT dated 17.04.2002, posts of PCCF and PCCF (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden were created. Thus the applicant could have become entitled for benefits of the post of PCCF a (Wildlife) only from 17.04.2002, if he had been in service at that we 4 OA.2036/2019 time. On that date i.e. 17.04.2002 pay scale of PCCF was Rs.24050- 26000/- as per accepted recommendations of the 5° CPC implemented by Government of India from 01.01.1996.
2(e). The applicant claims that as per DoPT Notification dated 17.04.2002, he is entitled for benefit of post of PCC (Wildlife) from that date in spite of his retirement on 30.04.1994. Therefore, his monthly pension should have been revised from that date and thereafter again from 01.01.2006. On this subject Writ Petitions No.CWP No.978/2000 (Swaran Singh Chahal Vs. Union of India and others), CWP No. 110/2601 (Harbans Kaur and others Vs. Union of India and others) and CWP No.109/2001 (S.C. Gaur Vs. Union of India and others), were preferred in Himachal Pradesh High Court by Indian Forest Service Officers, who had retired prior to 25.03.1986. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed these petitions vide its order dated 26.05.2008 holding that in the Government of India Notification dated 06.04.1988, in place of post of Chief Conservator of Forests, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was inserted in the Indian Forest Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1966. | 2(). The applicant approached Respondent No.2 through his letter dated 05.02.2013 requesting for revision of his pension. Reply was sent to him on 07.05.2014 by Department of Revenue and Forests, LAY OA.2056/2019 Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai explaining that his request for revision of pension had been sent to office of Accountant General, Nagpur and accordingly that office had issued revised pension on 22.01.2014 to him. Since the Himachal Pradesh High Court order was for granting pay scale of PCCF notified on 06.04.1988 to those who retired from the post of CCF prior to 1986, and in that notification the designation of CCF had been substituted by PCCF and the applicant had retired on 30.04.1994 Le. after 1986, his request for grant of pension in the pay scale of PCCF was rejected. Therefore, this O.A. has been filed.
3. Contentions :
A. Applicant :
In the O.A. and during arguments of his. counsel, the applicant has contended as follows:-
3{a). the State Government order in letter dated 07.05.2014 is. arbitrary and unjustified. It is not disputed that the post of PCCF (Wild Life) was created by notification dated 17.04.2002 issued by DoPT and Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 15.04.2015. Thus the benefit of post of PCCF (Wild Life} became operative from 17.04.2002 and not from 25.03.1986. The Notification dated 25.03.1986 was for the post of PCCF and not for the post of PCCF (Wild Life). The contention of pre-1986 retirees mentioned in the Government of India Notification of 05.01.2012 was not applicable in the case of the applicant based on 6 OA.2036/2019 the principle approved by Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the impugned order issued by the esnondéats is not sustainable in law;
3(b). the post of PCCF (Wild Life) created as per Notification dated 17.04.2002 was on the basis of principle accepted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The DoPT, Government of India as per Circular dated 05.01.2012 had directed. State Government to grant the benefit of the post of PCCF to CCF to those retired prior to 25.03.1986, but the Government of Maharashtra has not implemented that order. As per DoPT Circular dated 03.01.2012, provisions of that Circular are also equally applicable not only to pre-1986 retirees but also to pre-2002 retirees, But the Government of Maharashtra refused to grant the benefit to the applicant by sticking to the terms of pre-1986 retirees mentioned In the DoPT Cireular dated 05.01.2012. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside; and Ae). the communication of 07.05.2014 has been issued in a mechanical fashion. In the notification dated 17.04.2002, the post of PCCF (Wild Life) was sanctioned but it was not a creation of new post and it was only a substitute of the earlier post i.e. the post of CCF (Wild Life) was substituted by PCCF (Wild Life). The State Government should revise the monthly pension of the applicant in pay scale of Rs.24050-26000/- from 17.04.2002 and thereafter revise it again from 7 QA.2036/2019 1.012006 as per 6° CPC recommendations accepted by the Government of india and release arrears of pension to him. Therefore, the applicant seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order by allowing the O.A. 3(d). Along with O.A., the applicant has also filed M.A.2052/2019 for condoning delay in filing the O.A, He himself has mentioned that in filing the present O.A., there has been delay of 3 years and 304 days and has justified it by claiming that he was sick and under . treatment from August, 2014 to July, 2015. However, after July, 2015, the applicant has.not mentioned any reason to justify the delay of 3 years and 304 days in filing the present O.A. B. Resp ondents In the reply and arguments of their counsel, the respondents have contended as follows:-
3{e). the depticant retired from the post of Chief Conservator of Forests (wild Life} on 30.04.1994. He has in the O.A. asked for revision of his pension in the pay scale of post of PCCF (Wild Lite) which was created in 2002 as per DoPT Notification dated 17.04.2002 ie. after 8 years of his retirement. The representation dated 07.01.2013 was for revision of his pension in accordance with pay scale of PCCF (Wild Life) from 15.01.2003 relying on the letter of Ministry of Environment and Forests dated 05.01.2012. As per the directions of Government of see g ----QA.2036/2019 India in that letter, the pay scale of PCCE was applicable to only those officers who had retired before 1986 as CCE. Since the applicant retired on 36.04.1994, the pay scale of PCCF is not applicable to his. case and he has been replied vide letter dated 07.05. 201 4 explaining the reasons;
3if. if the applicant is aggrieved of that letter, then he ought to have approached the Tribunal within the period of limitation but in filme the present O. A. there is a delay of almost 4 years. Hence it is barred by limitation and the O.A. is, therefore, liable for dismissal on the ground of delay and laches as ek the view token in following Supreme Court ; decisions 7 | G) BS. Sadasivawswamy Vs. S/o Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271,
(ii) Jacob Abraham and others AT. Full Bench Judgments, 11994-96, Gil) Ram Chandra Samanta Vs. UOT, 1994(26) ATC 228,
(iv) §.S. Rathore Vs. Sio MP., 1989(2) ATC 521, (vy) Bhoop Singh Vs. UOT IR 1992 SC 1414,
(vi) Secretary to Govt. of India Vs. Shivaram M. Gaikwad (1995) 30 ATC 635 : 1995 (6) SLR (SC) 812;
(vil) Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. UO! 1994{2) SLI 77,
(viii) _L. Chandra Kumar Vs. UOT 1997(2) SLR (SC) 1,
(ix) ATR 1995C 564 Dattaram Vs. Union of India
(x) 1996 LLI 1127 (SC) UOL Vs. Bhagnoar Singh, (xb) (1999) 8 SCC 304 Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh 9 OA.2036/2019 Kamal & Ors. |
(xi) 2002 ( 5) SLE (SC) 307 E. Pans ein & Ors Vs. VOL & Ors. AT Act, 1985, tsi) 2014 (1) SLI (SC) 20 Esha Battcharjee Vs. Management Committee of Raghnathpur Nafar Academy, {xiv) 2014 (2) SLR 688(SC) State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, 3(g). the applicant's claim is, therefore, a stale claim and the Tribunal cannot go into it. The Tribunal has already accepted the settled position in its judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 in O.A.No.92/2006 Kaushal Kishore Vs. Union of India & Others. The Full Bench of the Tribunal has also ruled that preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction and limitation has to be decided first. The issue of limitation has to be considered with reference to original cause of action and not from the date on which the order has been passed in compliance of Court's direction: and | 3(h). as per cadre review of IFS (Maharashtra) approved by the Goverment of india, one more post of PCCF was sanctioned in the Maharashtra IFS cadre strength and as per Government of India Notification dated 17.04.2002, one post of PCCF (Wild Life) was also upgraded from the post of CCF (Wild Life), the post from which the applicant retired in 1994, Had the applicant been in service, only then he 10 OA,2036/2019 would have been entitled to get the benefit of upgraded pay scale of PCCF (Wild Life), Hence the O.A. be dismissed.
4, Analysis and conclusions -
dia). We have carefully considered the submissions made by the applicant in the O.A. and contentions during his arguments. We have also carefully considered contentions of the respondents.
4(b). The applicant is aggrieved of Reply of Respondent No.2 dated 07.05.2014 rejecting his request for revision of his pension for the pay scale of PCCF and has filed this O.A. only on 14.02.2019. As submitted in the O.A. and in the M.A.2052/2019 for condoning the delay, the applicant himself has admitted that there has been a delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing this OLA. While he has claimed sickness upto July, 2015, which is also not a sufficient cause to justify non-filing of the O.A,, and after July, 2015 he has not assigned any justifiable reason which prevented him from approaching this Tribunal. Therefore, this M.A. having no merit deserves to be dismissed.
4(e}, The undisputed facts in this case are that the applicant was promoted as CCF from 04.10.1990 and retired from the post of CCF (Wild Life} on 30.04.1994, The post of PCCF was created as per DoPT Notification dated 17.04.2002 and that of PCCE (Wild Life) was also created as per that notification and Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 15.01.2003.
A ie DA2036/2019 4id). Since the applicant had retired on 30.04.1994, at that time the post of PCCF (Wild Life) was not in existence in the State of Maharashtra. Since that post was created only as per two Notifications of 17.04.2002 and 15.01.2003, the applicant cannot claim benefit of pay scale of post of PCCF either from the date of his retirement or from 2002. The reliance of the applicant on the Government of India Notification in pursuance to HP High Court decision in case of CWP No.978/2000 (Swaran Singh Chahal Vs. Union of India 'ad others}, CWP No.110/2001 (Harbans Kaur and others Vs. Union of India and others} and CWP No.109/2001 (S.C. Gaur Vs. Union of India and others) dated 26.03.2008 is also not helpful to him, because in the cases under reference in those Writ Petitions, new post of PCCF in that cadre was not created and only the post of CCF had been only redesignated as PCCF. Therefore, that case did not involve creation of a new post of PCCF but it involved only re-designation of the post of CCF as that of PCCP. That action also pertained to a time prior to 1986.
4fe). --s_s In the present case, however, as there was no post of PCC when the applicant retired in 1994, he retired only from the post of CCF (Wild Life) and the post of PCCF (HoD), and in addition post of PCCE (Wild Life) and Chief Wild Life Warden was created only in 2003. In view of these facts of the case, we do not find any deficiency or infirmity in the reply of the respondents to the applicant dated 07.08.2014. In 12 OA2036/2019 view of the above analysis of the case, we do net find any merit in the contentions of the applicant in this O.A. and it deserves dismissal. 8, Decision :
The O.A, is dismissed for unjustified long delay and for lack of merits. No costs.
| % : 7 . 5 x zs E (Dr. Biaewdil Sahai) (Justice Aes. Sewlikar} Member (A) Member (J).